In a recent article published by The Odyssey that went viral last week, a case for the disintegration of feminism was made. The title, "I Am a Female and I am so Over Feminists" with the subheader "I believe that I am a strong woman, but I also believe in a strong man" immediately caught my attention. The article was based simply on a matter of opinion, and any fact that was stated had absolutely no source to back up its claims. The claims were so outrageous that I actually thought that it was a satire article, or a sarcastic one because there could be no way that someone could be so narrow-minded about feminism.

While I'm a big believer in having opinions and voicing those opinions, I'm also a big believer in having evidence to back up your claims, otherwise your opinion is virtually worthless.

In this piece, the author discusses why she thought that feminism was losing momentum, and why feminism in general was a bad word.

Before I tackle each point made in the article, what feminism actually is has to be established.

I will not pretend as though "femi-nazis" don't exist. There will always be people who use umbrella terms like "feminism" as an excuse for their behavior. If at any point you hear a woman say that she hates men, that women are better than men in any way, or that men should be underneath women in the social ladder, then what you're hearing is not feminism. It's called misandry.

I will admit that sometimes, as a feminist, I do say sexist things in retaliation to how I feel about men. If I'm being cat-called or a creepy man is saying to me "let me have a piece of that" in reference to my ass on the streets of Jamaica as I walk to my mom's elementary school to volunteer, I will repeat in my brain "I hate men" for a few hours. Do I really hate men? Of course not. I have two brothers, a father, and a brother-in-law, all of whom respect women and would never speak to a woman like that. Cat-calling is never respectful and should never be taken as a compliment. It is simply a misogynist telling you that he is sexually objectifying you.

What a lot of anti-feminists tend to focus on is the sexual dimorphism between the sexes. They'll say "men and women are inherently different," "women are more emotional than men," or "men are physically stronger than women" but what they're not looking at is the social construct of those physical differences.

There is a reason why men, or at least hyper-masculine men, don't cry as much as women. Aside from a difference in hormones, which all of us have, men are taught from a very early age that crying or showing any form of emotion is "girly" and meant for women; in order to be a true, strong man, you must always remain emotionally in-tact and never shed a tear unless you're eating the best bacon you've ever had in your life. This actually creates a lot of psychological issues for those men because whenever they do show emotion, even common emotions like anxiety or insecurity, or even if they fall somewhere else on the gender-expression binary as something other than "manly-man," they feel ashamed and different, fearing that they'll get called things like "faggot," "gay," or "pussy."

In an article that I published about three weeks ago, I brought up just a glimpse of how I feel that feminism is being completely misconstrued, and the idea that men don't benefit from feminism was one of my main points. Men do, and should, benefit from feminism because it isn't simply about women. It's to bring women and men onto the same level so that if men do express "feminine" traits, they're not discriminated against and put down onto the same level as women.

You'll hear anti-feminists explain that it's unnatural for men to cry or be weak or want to express feminine traits, but how can that be possible when masculinity and femininity are social constructs made up over thousands of years of civilization? You're telling me that women must wear dresses and men must wear slacks and a polo because it's natural? Clothing is man made also, and if a man wants to wear a dress, I will fully condone it. Of course it will be a funny sight to see, but only because we've been conditioned over hundreds of years to believe that men should be one way and women should be another, but there is no rule book on gender-expression.

Feminism is, and always has been about equality. The first-wave of feminism brought to light the injustices women faced on the political field, where it wasn't until June 4th, 1919 that congress passed the 19th amendment that allowed women to vote in the U.S. That was less than 100 years ago, and women in places like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are subject to zealots claiming that "god wills it" in reference to their extreme gender-oppression.

Now, it's time to debunk what was said in the anti-feminist post.

"First of all, this is the 21st century. Women have never been more respected. Women have more rights in the United States than anywhere else in the world."

Ignorance is bliss, right? We don't have as many rights here as you think. Paid maternity leave, the wage gap/labor equality, political empowerment, and planned parenthood availability are all aspects of gender equality that we must look at to determine the true value of women's rights. Alongside Papua New Guinea and Suriname, the United States does not guarantee a paid maternity leave for new mothers. While we expect women and men to have the equal opportunity for work, there is no denying that women go through something very unique when it comes to birth. Paid maternity leave allows for a safety net for new mothers and their families, while also assuring those new mothers that they have a job ready for them when it's time for them to return.

Aside from the fact that the United States doesn't have more rights than any other country in the world, the author of the anti-feminist article also suggests that "the male body is meant to endure more physically while the female is more delicate." While many studies will indicate that men have a higher pain tolerance, we need to examine the way we interpret pain and tolerance. Piggybacking on what I said earlier, men are taught to be more manly and less emotional which can be cause for why men have a higher pain tolerance. This does not mean that men's bodies are meant to endure pain. If we look at how women experience pregnancy, we can argue that their bodies are meant to go through something that traumatic.

Sociologists and anthropologists alike will argue that women, from the very beginning of homo-sapien evolution, only ever did the "housework" like cooking and cleaning because of pregnancy, and that pregnancy disables you from arduous hunting and gathering, and the recovery from labor was enough to keep women from doing the other work.

The author also wrote in her article that women shouldn't be able play in the NFL. She says "I mean, really? Can you imagine being tackled by a 220-pound linebacker? Of course not. Our bodies are different. It’s not “inequality,” it’s just science." Simply put, the author is ignoring the women that do not fit the mold of "dainty, gentle, and weak." If a woman truly wants to play in the NFL, if she is more muscular than some of the men on her team and weighs around 220 lbs, why the hell shouldn't she be allowed to play in the NFL? It is inequality, it's not science. No girl with low muscle mass and low weight in their right mind would join the NFL, but if a girl has the will to do so and has the body for it, then let her. Not all women are 5'3" and 120lbs.

"Whatever happened to chivalry? Why is it so “old fashioned” to allow a man to do the dirty work or pay for meals? Feminists claim that this is a sign of disrespect, yet when a man offers to pick up the check or help fix a flat tire (aka being a gentleman), they become offended."

Oh, the chivalry argument. I want to know what feminist, or what woman for that matter, gets offended if a man offers to pay for a meal or fix a flat tire. Chivalry is not as simple as men doing all the "dirty" work or offering to do nice things. It is expected that people in general do nice things for one another. If I were a straight woman dating a man and I made him pay for my meals all the time because he's a man and it's chivalrous, I would be doing myself a disservice. Over time, men may feel resentment toward women for always making them pay for a meal simply because they're a man. If you want respect from a man or any person in your life, it's important to communicate to them that you would love to pay for a meal, but if they offer, you should say yes. I am never offended when a man is being a gentleman; however, I do get offended if a guy wants something in return for their chivalry. As a feminist, I would like to see men and women both be chivalrous. I would like to see more women go out of their way to hold doors open for people, or to offer to pay for meals. If you don't know how to change a flat tire (which I didn't until two weeks ago), I suggest you learn because there isn't always going to be a nice strong man who is capable of doing it for you. Men are not born with the innate ability to change a flat tire. You need a socket wrench and a hydraulic lift, not a man. If a man offers to do it for you, I see no reason why you or anyone else would be offended by it.

The author then goes on to look at "historical facts" regarding the workforce, claiming that women working is a relatively new idea. She claims that women up until the 80's didn't work much. Disregard the fact that during WWI and WWII women were asked to perform the manufacturing jobs that men did while they were fighting in a war. What about before the wars? Women and children were asked to do tasks that men were not suitable for because of their robustness. Women worked in mills and historically had some of the worst working conditions that could be known. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire of 1911 is a prime example of how much women worked and the conditions they faced during that time. 145 women were killed in this fire, most of who were immigrants and teenagers. Labor unions and factory regulations were set because of this incident.

When the men returned from WWII, the economy was bustling. Most of the men who returned from Europe and the Pacific front went back to their jobs, but because of the GI Bill that was issued in 1944, a lot of those men went onto college. Following suit, women also went to college. Provoked by society, a lot of the women that went to college went to find their husbands, and most often did not finish school. This went on until the second wave of feminism in the 1960's hit the mainstream mind.

Although the second-wave was more than 50 years ago, some of those same arguments (like reproductive rights and workforce equality) are actually being reissued today. Many politicians are looking to rid women of their right to choose between keeping a baby and having an abortion. Abortion is a completely different argument that I'm not looking to make, but it is proven that places with illegal abortions make for dangerous conditions for women seeking abortions. Aside from abortion, policymakers are looking to get rid of Planned Parenthood altogether. Planned Parenthood does not just perform abortions. In fact, it is way more than just abortions. To say that everything in the U.S. honky-dory in terms of women's rights is just plain ignorant.

To say "well, I don't think I experience sexism so it must not exist" is naive. Try being a black woman, a Hispanic woman, a trans woman, a gay woman, anything different than white cis female. This is not to say that white cis women do not experience sexism, because they certainly do. Many women may not even be aware of the misogyny they face because it has become a part of their daily lives.

"We don’t have to pretend we don’t need our men every once in a while."

Do we need "our men" because of the fact that they're men and they're capable of doing "more things" than women? Or do we need "our men" because they are our fathers, brothers, sons, etc.? Because I'm pretty sure I don't need men for anything other than being my father or my brother. Do I need a man to help me lift a heavy printer off the shelf at Staples? No, I don't, because as a technology saleswoman at Staples I'm able to lift heavy things on my own. Do I need a man to change my flat tire? No, I don't because we have things like WikiHow and YouTube to teach me and socket wrenches that allow us to do the work ourselves. If we keep saying that men and women have designated jobs in this world, we can never truly be equal, and the women that want to do things, like become a car mechanic, are subject to sexism in that field because the men she works with think that they own to rights to brake-line replacement and changing the oil.

"I believe in myself as a powerful female and human being. However, I don’t believe that being a female entitles me to put down men and claim to be the “dominant” gender."

I don't know a single real feminist that believes women are dominant to men.

We are equal. Women should be allowed to join the NFL if they want to and have the body for it. Men should never have to be subject to being called "pussy" if they aren't super masculine, don't know much about cars, don't play football, or can't afford to pay for every meal.